Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

[Synchronicity]

Prior to the 80s (I believe), Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, etc................
all had a gun culture similar to ours and they all tightened gun laws. Their stats and numbers on gun violence are now sharply lower than ours.

Only the U.S. , who has a rate and severity of murders and mass shootings that is off the charts now, has refused to answer the problem with significant increases in gun laws.

When countries tighten gun laws- it leads to decreased numbers of guns in private hands. this has led to decreased deaths and murders from private guns.

Today Britain has one of the lowest numbers of guns per capita in the developed world. Also one of the lowest homicide rates. Even their cops will go unarmed in many situations.............

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people".................by examples referred to above- it is simply not true.

The results speak for themselves and it is time to face our reality in changed times. We are not fighting England for tea taxes or a civil war over slavery or Japan over agression lately........ the situation is now unique to itself and a changing attitude in our society- that guns and murder solve all problems............

Not true any more and our children now suffer more than adults in the consequence.......
We can still have guns for self defense- just not as many and not as many for killing people as opposed to guns that are not so able to kill many people in a military or urban setting........... and no guns for psychos with records....... we need to start somewhere

jus sayin

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

 

[bam0813]

I agree and disagree with some of that. Guns that aren’t killing large amounts of people? So single shot only? Most guns are as proficient at that task as their operator imo. The guns don’t kill people implication that less guns to be stolen equals guns do kill people thing. Heres how about look at that, a deranged murderer needs but one and theft and possession of stolen property is a crime too. Enforcement but enforcement can create probs too

 

[captainmorgan]

"The NRA has no problem allowing our children to be killed. More guns is always the solution. The only place the NRA bans guns is at an NRA conference."

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

I heard that the 2018 shooting at Parkland resulted in a study that said the best way to protect students is to make sure schools have a single point of entry that is well protected.

The best way to protect schools is to get rid of guns, this has been proven repeatedly and is basically an established fact. Other free liberal democracies can do it and so can America. If you couldn't, they wouldn't be so worried about the democrats gaining enough power to do it. It's real simple and the 2nd means shit, the federal government can regulate arms and already does. The constitution says arms and they meant weapons of war, guns, cannon, grenades and rockets, all existed at the time of the founders and the 2nd was for military purposes and does not mention guns, but arms in general.

 

[bam0813]

The military was the general public

 

[bam0813]

You know why they’re called “arms” right?

 

[bam0813]

If the second means shit how bout the rest

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

The military was the general public

They had a standing army as their main military force and it was supplemented by local militias under the control of local governments. There was a shortage of arms and it was a way of drafting you and your gun, if you didn't want to protect your community, they would take your gun and give it to someone who would and take orders from the deep state too!

 

[mooray]

Most other first world countries simply have better people. Our inflated American ego's have a hard time grasping it. Ironically, the humbleness taught in the bible would make it easy to understand.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

That my main point too.

so god says it's ok for you to carry a firearm?...even though you being able to get those firearms also makes it possible for unhinged, psychotic, murderous fucks who want to kill children to get them as well? are you really sure god is the one saying that shit to you?
let me clue you in to something...god doesn't give rights, people do...rights are a completely human invention, that we use to justify our behavior, in this case, your "right" to self protection facilitates the ability of the mentally unstable to obtain weapons they use to murder people, usually children in schools, because thats where they can get the biggest return on their investment....
your "right" to protection is a pile of horseshit in the face of real events and consequences....those children have a right not to be murdered by weapons that are only obtainable because cowards need a weapon to make themselves feel like they aren't really cowards....

 

[bam0813]

Your right about God Rog. I should have said birth right to self defense. Didn’t mean to inject any religion into this tangled web of shit we’ve woven

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

If the second means shit how bout the rest

Somethings are more or less ignored, the 2nd was a widely acknowledged mistake by experts. That's the function of the electoral college, it was suppose to keep unfit wingnuts like Trump from power by thwarting the will of an ignorant populace. The 2nd was misinterpreted by a politically packed court, it was for the maintenance of a militia, not a lunatic free for all and messianic vision of freedumb.

My point is the government already regulates calibers and automatic weapons, you can't own bombs either and they are arms too, according to the constitution. The government could regulate calibers down to .22, except for hunting rifles and for those you need a license, like owning a .50 cal weapon. If automatic weapons can be banned or restricted then so can semi automatic ones, including pistols. It is within the governments power and constitutional for them to do these things, regulate, not ban and require insurance etc.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Most other first world countries simply have better people. Our inflated American ego's have a hard time grasping it. Ironically, the humbleness taught in the bible would make it easy to understand.

that's a pretty sweeping statement...everyone is saying the reason other countries have less school shooting, less mass shootings in general, is that they made guns harder to get...how the fuck does that equate to other countries having "better" people?....if they were "better" people, they wouldn't need to make guns harder to get, those good people just wouldn't use them to kill people, because they're good people....
and honestly, while there are some good lessons in the bible, in all religious texts, there is so much more bad that it isn't even a contest...organized religion is a tool for a few people to use to control a much larger group of people, all it's ever been, all it's ever going to be. that humbleness is to teach people to listen when their superiors (clergy, in this case) speak, and to take their advice to heart...no matter that that advice can be beyond bad...

 

[bam0813]

People have been called racist for this but I believe there is a difference between telling someone to leave and informing them they are free to move

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

The 2nd was misinterpreted by a politically packed court, it was for the maintenance of a militia, not a lunatic free for all and messianic vision of freedumb.

there was no standing army when the second amendment was written. the writers of the constitution and the second amendment did not want or trust a standing army, they had too often been used to suppress the people they were supposed to protect. there was also no way to quickly mobilize troops to protect states that might be under attack from foreign powers, so the local populace was meant to train at working together to defend their homes and towns on a regular basis...that is what a well regulated militia is, a defensive body meant to protect the members homes and lives...
the writers of the constitution, and the second amendment had no way of knowing that we would soon have a standing army anyway.
they had no way of knowing that developments in firearms technology would lead to weapons that could kill huge numbers of people with minimum effort. a man using a black powder rifle or pistol could conceivably get off 3 to 4 rounds a minute, if no one interfered with them reloading....a man with a modern semi automatic rifle could probably get off more than 100 rounds in one minute...if they were very uncordinated, they could still easily get off 50 rounds a minute. an unskilled clumsy killer today can fire more than 12 times the rounds a skilled person firing a muzzle loader could have fired at the time of the writing of the second amendment.
does anyone who doesn't have their head buried up their ass believe for one minute that the writers of the constitution would have included the second amendment as it was written, if they had had even an inkling of what was to come?
amendments can be changed, it's in the very name...time to amend the second amendment, so not every fucking flake in the country can legally own a private arsenal...and the mentally unstable cannot own firearms at all

 

[Billy the Mountain]

 

[BudmanTX]

Uh, this is Texas we're talking about.

And this is what the guy they elected Governor tweeted:
View attachment 5139495

What laws? He was18.

Amazing - the kind of things that EMBARRASS those Texans, right Ted?

View attachment 5139496

yeah i'm not a fan of those fuckers myself.....Abbott need to go.....loved it when Beto called him out and in so many words saying "you f'd it up, now how are you gonna fix it"

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

People have been called racist for this but I believe there is a difference between telling someone to leave and informing them they are free to move

Or they can stay and exercise the will of the majority, unless they are cheated out of the right to vote by traitors and fanatics. Then they stay and fight.

 

[mooray]

that's a pretty sweeping statement...everyone is saying the reason other countries have less school shooting, less mass shootings in general, is that they made guns harder to get...how the fuck does that equate to other countries having "better" people?....if they were "better" people, they wouldn't need to make guns harder to get, those good people just wouldn't use them to kill people, because they're good people....
and honestly, while there are some good lessons in the bible, in all religious texts, there is so much more bad that it isn't even a contest...organized religion is a tool for a few people to use to control a much larger group of people, all it's ever been, all it's ever going to be. that humbleness is to teach people to listen when their superiors (clergy, in this case) speak, and to take their advice to heart...no matter that that advice can be beyond bad...

Unless we're talking about writing code in binary, sweeping statements is all we get. What it comes down to is whether or not we like it. If I say, "republicans are dumb", you won't mention sweeping statements, even though it's totally a sweeping statement. Plus, if you agree with it, then we're already up to roughly half the population, so how many more people need to be idiots before the statement becomes roughly true? I think 51% or better is good enough to make a sweeping statement, in which case, is republicans plus 1% of the other half of the country really a stretch?

And there are different tiers of better/worse people. If child A does something wrong and has their toy taken away and accepts it because they know they fucked up, but child B does something wrong and has their toy taken away and refuses to accept it because they think they're the most amazing thing ever created and will literally commit murder to keep their toy, which child do you think is worse and which child do you think is most closely aligned with Americans today?